The Lady Hussey racism thing

[Tiiiiiiiiiiired]

I am really conflicted about this.

If went to live in Japan (I did live there for 3 years several years ago) I would be expected to be asked about where I'm from because I don't look Japanese (and in fact I was asked many times! I didn't mind at all, it was my choice to be in Japan and I knew I didn't look japanese). If I chose to stay in that country and have children, I'd expect my children would be asked the same, and their children and that although they would be Japanese by birth, I would hope they would be happy to talk about their heritage and where they are from and not mind being asked why they don't look Japanese and what the history is. I wouldnt think it racist and wouldn't want such questions to be stopped because we only learn from others, and about others, by talking and feeling safe to ask questions.

So why in the UK does everyone have to be sooo careful with what they say? This woman has a non English name, was wearing some non western clothing, as was asked about her heritage. Why is this abuse?

We need to stop being so sensitive and allow dialogue.

It has been corroborated by witnesses and the palace has accepted it.

Why are you so keen to cast doubt on the veracity of the reports?

She didn’t say it was violent! Link please, I can’t see it.

She doesn't say it was violence.

In fact she said the exact opposite in the BBC article

She didn't say it was violence she literally said it wasn't.

I would also like to know why Ngozi's recall/run through of LHs words is automatically assumed by many on this thread to be faulty or motivated by a political agenda, but the reporter who wrote the article is assumed to be true and unmotivated by a political agenda?

"I have to really question how this can happen in a space that's supposed to protect women against all kinds of violence.
"Although it's not physical violence - it is an abuse."

The phrase ‘all kinds of violence’ makes it clear that she does not consider physical violence to be the only type of violence. The phrasing makes it clear that she considered the the encounter to be violent (non physically) and abusive.

www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-63819482

If this lady is so proud of her heritage why did she not say where her family originally came from. I think she wanted to be offended and was intentionally obtrusive in her answers. I have been asked where I came from (I'm white Caucasian but am olive skinned) but I wasn't offended because there was no offence meant. Why is it racist to ask someone where they come from? It's a question nothing more. Please people, stop trying to be offended unless someone is deliberately being offensive!!

I suggest you read the thread. It might help answer your question.

Oh, for God’s sake… Just read the thread if you can’t work it out yourself.

An awful lot of white British people are ‘just curious’ or ‘just interested’ in learning about someone’s heritage when that person isn’t white (funnily enough that curiosity never seems to extend to other white people). But even if you argue that it’s natural to be curious about that in this country, I have to ask why people think they’re entitled to immediately have that curiosity satisfied? Why they think they get to demand answers as soon as they meet someone, and ask probing and potentially very personal questions to get the answers they want?

There are lots of things we might be curious about when we first meet someone. I might meet someone with a prominent scar and wonder how they got it. I might wonder if their hair is naturally blonde or if their flashy engagement ring is a real diamond or if their slightly round belly is a baby bump. But I don’t think I’m entitled to ask about those things as soon as I meet them because I’m ‘just curious’. That would be rude. For some reason though, when it comes to skin colour, we think it’s ok to ask a question that essentially boils down to ‘why are you that colour?’ because we are ‘just interested’. Can people really not understand why it’s not appropriate to demand that someone explains their skin colour to you within seconds of meeting them?

It's hardly surprising that someone who works with victims of domestic violence classs various things as violence. Emotional abuse, financial abuse etc all fall under the umbrella of domestic violence.

But she also makes it clear she doesn't consider it to be physical violence but abuse.

And it is racist abuse so I'm not sure why that's infactual?

So is she actually called Marlene Headley? I've just read this. Why would she change her name?

@IslandNanny, witnesses to the conversation described it as "racist and offensive". BP investigated and said Lady SH's comments were "unacceptable".

Racism happened to Ngozi Fulani at the Palace. No one who was there or who investigated it is saying otherwise. On the contrary, the statements corroborate what NF is saying. Why are you minimising this obviously racist encounter?

Lots of reasons why people change their name - if indeed she has.

Why do you care?

Do you need to dig into every detail of her past and appraise it before you can make a judgement about whether she’s allowed to be upset about racism?

No I’m not blaming the Ngozi for the palaces reaction that is not what O said. She was highly offended by what was said, SH was clearly in the wrong but instead of posting on Twitter she should have in the first instance contacted the palace and made a formal complaint because she had right on her side and that is what grown ups when they encounter racism/bullying etc at work and ultimately she was at this event in a work capacity. If for example I was a victim of bullying/discrimination at work I wouldn’t slap it all over the work Facebook page I would make a formal complaint to my manager for it to be investigated. Obviously if her complaint is ignored or belittled then go public with it. But I find the fact that she immediately jumped on someone social media and went public with this and then the main media have all piled on distasteful and IMO she looses some of the moral high ground.

Surely the fact that NF was there as a representative of a charity for women of African and Caribbean heritage (only) meant that it was legitimate to ask her about her heritage? Or is that a micro aggression?

She wasn't at work she was at a work event

She can't complain to HR

This more like the equivalent of going t9 a restaurant and the owners best friend being racist.

She doesn't lose moral high ground by highlighting racist events. And black women don't have to care if you find their reaction to racism distasteful

The fact that you care more about her 'distasteful reaction than the racism itself says more about you than her

I suppose it could boil down to not what was asked, but how it was asked?

The person who "ruined" Camilla's event is in fact the woman who posted her grievance publically on twitter instead of taking her complaint through the proper and appropriate Palace channels first like an adult.

Why does it matter?

Maybe stop with the faux naivety

Agenda?

It’s a storm in a teacup. But that’s the world we live in now.

The person who "ruined" Camilla's event is the person who made racist remarks

Fucking victim blaming.

It's not faux naivety, I'm genuinely curious as to why a woman changing her name is relevant in a thread about racist remarks being made to her